The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World

Matthew Stewart has retired to pursue a life of contemplation. The world of books would benefit a great deal if more clever people and iconoclasts had the means to do this. Not only does this tale entertain its reader in a way that academic books are not allowed to, it is surely a serious contribution to the history of Spinoza - even if the academic establishment has grave doubts. It is replete with thought-provoking observations, remarks and anecdotes and tells a thorough story - based to great extent on surviving bits and pieces, but also on educated speculation - around the meeting of the two philosophers. Fans of Leibniz will complain that it is nothing but a character assassination, while Spinozists will tend on the whole to appreciate the detail the story adds to a philosopher whose life remains to a large extent mysterious. My favourite philosophical remark is the claim that contrary to conventional wisdom, which puts Spinoza in the rationalist tradition, his work is more sensibly read as radical empiricism. Grist to the mill of those of us pursuing lives of independent contemplation. My favourite piece of irreverence is the almost but not entirely concealed implication in the telling of the circumstances of Spinoza's death that Leibniz may have had some hand in it. Which of course surely cannot be true, can it? To anyone who is not afraid to rattle the cages of the academic establishment, this is a book very much worth reading. Staunch defenders of the dry anachronisms of academic scholarship should also therefore read this book very carefully.

This book fascinated me by telling a story of an intellectual connection between two of the greatest thinkers of our time in a way that makes it apparent that the connection and the debate between the two men is really the personification of the debate between the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason that is still very much alive. The book starts out, innocently enough, with descriptions of the childhoods and early education of Spinoza and Leibniz. This makes it seem that the book will turn into two parallel biographies of the two men, and in a way it does, but the weight that it gives to each of their lives is not equal. It is really a story of Spinoza's discovery of the modern, secular worldview and it's the impact on the medieval, God-as-Supreme-Being-based worldview that was predominant in the 17th century, and that had an unrelenting hold on the philosophy of Leibniz. The connection between Leibniz and Spinoza begins when Leibniz finds out about Spinoza's early work while working as an adviser for a German noble. He is intrigued by Spinoza's ideas on the nature of God and the attempts to describe God in a way that, unlike the traditional religious outlook, is logically consistent. At the time, Spinoza was hated and reviled by the mainstream culture because the description of God as an impersonal Substance, instead of a Supreme Being, was more than the religion-dominated society could comfortably tolerate. Leibniz begins a clandestine correspondence with Spinoza, which culminates in a brief visit to Spinoza's room in The Hague. During the discussions with Spinoza, or shortly after the visit, Leibniz realizes the full implication of his host's philosophy. The implication was that, if Spinoza was correct, then the revealed truths of any religion can no longer be accepted by anyone with a shred of reason. This presented a big problem for Leibniz because his greatest ambition was to contribute toward stopping the constant wars tearing through Europe at the time and he was convinced that the key to peace was a theocracy of a single unified and universal Christian Church. Leibniz makes an intellectual U-turn and spends the next forty years of his life trying to refute Spinoza's ideas with new philosophical theories with, in hindsight, a very limited success at best. In addition to the dramatic plot, the lively style of the book makes it a pleasure to read. Descriptions of Spinoza's and Leibniz's personalities make the two characters come alive and create the impression that you begin to know then as people. The writing is at times humorous and even sarcastic, though most of the humor and all of the sarcasm is at Leibniz's expense. It is obvious that the author is much more sympathetic toward Spinoza, understandably so. This brings me to the drawbacks of the book, which were the reason why I gave it four stars. Not enough credit is given to Leibniz. One or two times he is described as the "last universal genius" and it is briefly mentioned that he left his mark on almost every branch of science of his time. But, besides inventing calculus, there is no description of what it is that he did to deserve such a grand title. I wish the author spent at least as much time on Leibniz's achievements as he did on waxing sarcastic on Leibniz's nerdy and awkward appearance. Another point rubbed me the wrong way. For Spinoza, Matthew Stewart writes, "self-interest is virtue itself." On the other hand, when talking about Spinoza's main motivation in philosophy, he writes that Spinoza looked at himself as a revolutionary out to bring freedom to the masses and destroy the old theocratic political order. While doing so, "Spinoza brazenly crossed the line that divides self-interest from the common good" (p. 107). The same inconsistency is on p. 176: "Spinoza maintains that virtue in fact leads to a very unselfish social behavior." It seems that Stewart has a very narrow view of self-interest and does not see that self-interest and the common good can be one and the same. In other words, the common good was in Spinoza's self-interest, and the self-interest and "selfishness" of each individual becomes the common good. Its hard to believe that a writer such as Stewart would miss this point, but I see no other interpretation. To finish up, I recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about Spinoza and the philosophy of the Age of Reason.

The Courtier and the Heretic is a fascinating look at both the philosophical debates that raged in the late seventeenth century as well as a study of two very different men who approached the world from very different norms. Today, it is difficult to imagine a time when philosophical debates were the thing of Main Street discussions, at least among the educated. This has been true at various times in history, but is so absent today, that it is hard for us to imagine. The debate basically centered on the basic worldview of humanity and its relationship to God. Is God an anthropomorphic being who created mankind in his image? Or is man a material being who is part of the substance of God? This debate still rages today, in the guise of creationists vs. secularists. Stewart very clearly spells out the differences in the world views and the ways that they influence many aspects of life. He also, interestingly, spells out the commonalities in what would appear to be very diverse beliefs and leads the reader to consider how we can find reconciliation in today's heated debates. On another level, The Courtier and the Heretic are about two very real and very human men. Spinoza was a Jew who was expelled from his Jewish community because of his denial of anthropomorphism, which was the norm of his age. He led a very sober and righteous life, filled with self denial and study. Leibniz was an apologist for Christianity who did not attend church in his later years. His lifestyle was very lavish and superficial and he was accused of greed and self-service. This book is fascinating, although not easy for those of us who are not seeped in philosophy. However, it is a very worthwhile read.

The book is remarkably clear, considering the relatively recondite nature of the topics that these two philosophers discussed. It is a wonderful introduction to Spinoza. One learns quite a bit about Liebniz as well. I cannot recommend this too highly for someone who is not already well-versed in both of these philosophers. It's also a wonderful way of thinking about the way the two of them interacted.

Children prefer stories to explanations, a fact that has led thinkers to convey their views in poems, plays, and novels rather than treatises alone. Stewart, a serious thinker, follows suit by expressing his perspectives on modern (post-Machiavelli) philosophy by means of a story about a short meeting between two seminal philosophers. Exchanges between living philosophers of equal greatness are almost non-existent. Locke refused to have a "dialogue" with Leibniz, and in the Platonic dialogues Socrates always outclasses his interlocutors, except for Parmenides, who is far superior to the young Socrates. So an account about the interaction between two great minds naturally arouses curiosity among us children. The story Stewart tells, however, is something of a nothing-burger. I don't want to spoil the non-ending, but fundamentally we don't know what went on between the two men, nor even how many days (or hours) they talked. Stewart is somewhat successful in building what scraps of evidence we have into an interesting narrative, and his speculations about what went on between the two are intriguing, but the real "story" is why the thought and way of life of these two men matters to us today. Temperamentally and intellectually I've always been closer to Leibniz, whose major works I have read and reread, so I was skeptical about Stewart's initial depiction of the young Leibniz as something of a mendacious kiss-ass, as opposed to the long-suffering philosopher's philosopher, Spinoza. But read on and you find that Stewart gives a nuanced picture of both men: he shows Leibniz's Bodhisattva side as well as Spinoza's pride, ambition and possible atheism. The author also shows that while Leibniz may well have been a Spinozist in some sense--this continues to be debated--he was alarmed at what he considered a reductionist teaching that undermines common belief in the divine, including the immortal soul. Stewart puts both men in a larger context, showing how their philosophies are a response to basic problems in the dualism of Descartes, and also showing how two opposing streams of modern thought can be traced to them. In reading the story, for example, I became aware of how much Nietzsche was influenced by Spinoza, both agreeing with and reacting to him. After finishing the book--and this is the highest compliment I can give Stewart--I dusted off my old copies of Spinoza's works. This stimulating book is a good gateway to early modern philosophy. As the (now) 76 reviews demonstrate, the nothing-burger turns out to be a very juicy steak for those who like to think upon philosophy and the philosopher's life.

The author is a delight to read. His style is conversational and anything but dry. And anecdotal, almost gossipy, narrative is the easiest and most pleasant to follow. But … this reader anyway, got the early impression, which stayed with him throughout the book, that the narrative was tilted, and that the vector of the slant led to the cell of a secular saint, and it wasn’t Leibniz. In fact, the most surprising fact was how congenial a hermit Spinoza was. But the man involved in the all that life has to offer, wasn’t the one who had it all in the grip of his mind. From ships to mines, from Petersburg to Paris, the peripatetic little stocky man with the big wig, was not only more human, but I think, in effect, better for humanity. Nonetheless, a good try, but as the author said Leibniz couldn’t shake his fascination for Spinoza, Mr Stewart seems more enthralled by Leibniz than by his hero Spinoza. Or maybe that’s just me.

Fascinated by the exciting retelling of the Wittgenstein-Popper face-off in Wittgenstein's Poker and hearing that this one was in that vein, I hastened to obtain it. I also had long wanted to know more about Spinoza, who has always seemed very dry and largely inaccessible to me, and so I had an added incentive to read The Heretic and the Courtier, Matthew Stewart's account of the meeting between Spinoza and his younger contemporary, Gottfried Leibniz, and of the events leading up to it. Leibniz, himself, has never spoken to me philosophically and, after reading Stewart on the matter, I now see why. In his telling, Leibniz is very much the lesser thinker and something of a philosophical poseur, on the make for the main chance all his life and eager to compose and present theories that would please those in positions of power and wealth who could advance his career. While Spinoza was living a simple life in Amsterdam and other towns in Holland, grinding lenses for a living and composing his treatises for controversial publication, often anonymously, Leibniz is portrayed as scooting around, seeking to advance his standing and career. Importuning various important thinkers and prospective patrons, Leibniz learns of Spinoza's ideas and, according to Stewart, sets about to gather more information concerning them while simultaneously distancing himself from Spinoza's suspected heretical thoughts and, indeed, often working to refute them. This all culminates, apparently, in a brief meeting between the two when Leibniz, a rising star in his world manages a trip to the Hague to look in on Spinoza, briefly. What transpired between the two thinkers remains largely a mystery and Stewart is reduced to primarily portraying the background, with only hints at what the two men may have actually said to one another. In the process he gives us some of the apparent "dirt" of the day on a number of the peripheral players and goes on to show how the material Leibniz left behind at his death is somewhat ambiguous, suggesting, despite Leibniz' lifelong protests to the contrary, that he had been moved, and perhaps even influenced, by the Dutch philosopher's thoughts. Stewart is strongest in his presentation of Spinoza's abstract ideas, offering a very clear picture of what the excommunicated Jewish thinker had in mind in some of his most abstruse materials. Stewart also gives us a rich picture of Leibniz the philosophical whirlwind, always spinning out new ideas, in the mathematical (he was one of the inventors of calculus), scientific (he built an early computer and experimented with using windmills to drive water pumps for mining purposes) and philosophical arenas (he created an arcane theory of monads which, he hoped, would reconcile Church teachings with the rapidly developing scientific view of the world though it never caught on and became the catchword for the worst excesses of metaphysics in later philosophical discourse). But, in the end, Stewart's book is rather dry and somewhat loosely hung. It lacks the tautness and tension that Wittgenstein's Poker achieved. Perhaps this was unavoidable given the subject matter, the lack of certainty as to the key events themselves, the paucity of direct sources and the great distance between our time and what transpired then. Still it's a worthwhile read, if a bit slow going, if for nothing else than the rich description of Spinoza's ideas that it conveys. I was glad to have read it if only for that, to have improved my understanding of why such a seemingly pedantic philosopher like Spinoza, writing in the midst of the Enlightenment in a language that still reeked of medieval scholasticism, should still speak to us today. SWM

In this wonderfully written book we see the crucible in which the modern world was born. Through the personalities and ideas of the seventeenth centuries two greatest thinkers, we begin to understand the contradictions and debates that continue to this day between, the secular and the sacred, the old monarchies of the past and the modern democratic state. One cannot help clamoring in admiration for Spinoza, the clear hero. Once referred to by Bertrand Russell, as: "the closest thing to a saint philosophy has ever known", he is a true example of one who practiced what he preached. The chapter in which Stewart explains how the yearly income of one Leibniz could feed, clothe and house eleven Spinozas is an excellent example of his level of philosophical detachment. Even more hilarious is the scene depicting a priest, a protestant pastor, and a rabbi in a boat on the canals (there's a joke in there somewhere), hunting the printing houses of Amsterdam for Spinoza's last and greatest work, The Ethics. Due to its explosive content it had to be published posthumously and the account of it and his other work's being secretly shipped to his publisher reads like a cloak-and-dagger story. But, more than all these delightful anecdotes, the book does a great job of outlining the philosophical arguments on both sides, and explaining their importance to the modern world. We owe more to the little lens grinder of The Hague then we know.

A unique book! A masterpiece! I enjoyed every single page. I wish there were more works of this perfection. Thanks

Un libro di filosofia vero che si legge appassionatamente come un romanzo ! Unico ! Eccellente. Tratta di due figure cruciali per il mondo moderno e delle paradossali a volte differenze / similitudini attrazione / repulsione

Recomendo essa obra a todos que querem compreender o cerne das principais querelas ontológicas e axiológicas de nosso tempo. Enquanto Spinoza abole a ideia de um Deus pessoal, assumindo a liberdade como expressão da necessidade que define o indivíduo por oposição à ideia da liberdade como exercício de escolhas, rejeita noções como possibilidade/probabilidade como norte do universo, além de sua peremptória negação de qualquer cisão que separe o reino humano da esfera da Natureza e suas leis; Leibniz afirma uma visão de mundo que é hegemônica no cerne da maioria das pessoas: a pessoalidade de Deus, a tese da possibilidade de infinitos mundos, a defesa da liberdade como livre-arbítrio, o privilégio do homem dentro de tudo que foi gerado por Deus, etc. Nessas duas figuras, cujos pensamentos e condutas de vida foram tão antagônicas, delineiam-se as principais querelas sobre como concebemos o ser humano e sua inserção no mundo.

I took this book on holiday with me to Amsterdam, and read it overlooking some of the canals that Descartes and Spinoza probably walked along. Although I teach philosophy, I haven't studied either Leibniz or Spinoza since my undergraduate days 25 years ago. This book was a terrific read, bringing both philosophers vividly to life and giving an evocative picture of their time and the characters they mingled with. I'm not qualified to judge Stewart's central thesis about the pre-eminent importance of Spinoza to Leibniz's work, and I found some of the philosophical argumentation a little unconvincing, but overall this was a great read that can be enjoyed by professional philosophers, students, and the general reader alike.

Valeu pelos reais economizados👍